Showing posts with label rule of law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rule of law. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Darth Vader's Memoirs . . .

Darth, himself.

GETTING AWAY WITH TORTURE, the title of Dahlia Lithwick's article in Slate, commenting on the publication of Dick Cheney's memoir, "In My Time", seems to be a fair summation of Dick's adventures to date, unless, of course, some brave soul in the US gov't. decides to give it a try.

My focus is what Cheney's books tells us about the rule of law in America. As Glenn Greenwald puts it:

Less than three years ago, Dick Cheney was presiding over policies that left hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead from a war of aggression, constructed a worldwide torture regime, and spied on thousands of Americans without the warrants required by law, all of which resulted in his leaving office as one of the most reviled political figures in decades. But thanks to the decision to block all legal investigations into his chronic criminality, those matters have been relegated to mere pedestrian partisan disputes, and Cheney is thus now preparing to be feted—and further enriched—as a Wise and Serious Statesman ...

Implicit in Greenwald's commentary is that the Obama administration is responsible for Cheney's continued legitimacy in the debate about torture, as well as the legitimacy of the debate itself. By deciding to repudiate torture while doing everything in its power to protect the torturers, the Obama administration has succeeded in elevating not only Cheney but the idea that, in America, some torturers are too important to be punished.

Rule of law, what a great idea. We should try it here, too, what with Dalton and the un-published, un-Gazetted secret amendment to the Public Works Act, plus Stevie's contempt for Parliament and anything Stevie doesn't like.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Tories versus Conservatives -- Don't reward the rulebreaker


A clear eyed, simple explanation of how Harper's been breaking the law to get his own way, and bending what he couldn't break. IMHO this is the core of it:
The legality of the Oct. 14 election called by Prime Minister Stephen Harper was referred to the Federal Court but the court ruled it did not have time to intercede before the federal election.

It is, therefore, in the hands of the Canadian voter.

Harper entered politics with a mission. He wanted to transform Canada into a loose confederation of autonomous provinces with the federal government limited to foreign affairs, defence and an arbitration role among the provinces.

He felt it could be done without a constitutional change. "Just a willing federal government," he said. He even suggested there should be a firewall around Alberta, his province of choice.

To execute his plans, he needed a majority in Parliament.

Steven Patten, associate professor of political science at the University of Alberta, states in a new book, The Harper Record: "He hasn't wandered far from the ideological beliefs that first motivated him to engage in politics. He surrounds himself with conservatives who share his strong ideological beliefs and when he compromises on policy or the membership of his team, it is typically a strategic move designed to bring him closer to winning a majority government."
By planning this election way back in the early summer, Harper effectively added millions to his war chest (the pre-election call anti-Dion ads) , and got the voters to underwrite more attacks disguised as privileged parliamentary mailings. Then, once he had been stealth-campaigning for a couple of months, he called the election -- as though, having ambled casually halfway down the track, he finally let the guy fire the starter pistol.

Only widespread Canadian distrust (not much allayed by the rather creepy silence of the ATOC [1] candidates) stands in his rulebreaking path.

I don't think there's anything new in the Toronto Star Op-Ed, but it's all compressed and clear and dandy for xeroxing and handing out on street corners.

I wonder -- Canadian law prohibits a criminal from profiting from the proceeds of his crime. Does a nation qualify as "proceeds of crime"? and will this effect only Harper himself, or also the candidates pulling his dogsled?

Noni


[1] All The Other Conservatives

Monday, February 25, 2008

Is this what Bush has been trying to "spread"?


It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

George W. Bush
2nd Term Inaugural Speech
January 20, 2005

Lofty words from an administration which couldn't find democracy in a dictionary even if you tore out all the pages not containing the word.





Shouldn't Karl Rove be in prison by now? Although, I guess if you were in northern Alabama last night, you watched something else. WHNT-TV the CBS affiliate which broadcasts into northern Alabama censored that part of the program and then lied about it. Yes, they have strong ties to the Republican party.

Impolitical and Crooks and Liars has much more.